The form of Catholic Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter alwaysastudent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

alwaysastudent

Guest
My daughter is planning a ‘private’ Catholic ceremony on a Friday evening but the wedding and reception will be Saturday where she is planning a civil ceremony; I think it is because her fiance and friends are not Catholic ( some Muslims). This does not seem permissible and I told her so and thought the priest that would be marrying them would straighten it out but she if going forward with it. I don’t know if she was honest with him. Is this permissible? If not, do I have any obligation to inform the priest who was a family friend when he was at my parish?

Thank you
 
I leave room in the universe that this could be possible somewhere, but it isn’t where I live (France).

According to French law, only civil marriages have legal standing. Anyone may elect to have a religious ceremony as well, but it can’t replace the civil ceremony. As a result, no priest would preside over the wedding ceremony of a couple who were not already civilly married and this must be proven prior to the religious ceremony. Most couples who go this route marry civilly in the morning and religiously in the afternoon on the same day. They bring proof of the former to the latter.

I cannot say what your obligations might be in this matter and will leave that to others more knowledgeable than I.
 
Last edited:
What country are you in? The general procedures differ from country to country. As the other person said, French law would require the couple to have the civil ceremony first. In the US, I’m not sure how you’re going to have a “civil ceremony” after the priest has married you, because he’s basically performed the legal marriage and used up your license. Once the priest has legally married you, it seems like anything further after that is null and irrelevant because you’re already married, but I can’t see the civil authorities performing a marriage the next day if you no longer have an active license due to the priest already having conducted the marriage.
 
Yes, it’s done and legit, at least here in the US.

Friends did this who wanted a particular wedding venue which wasn’t a church. They were married Thursday by a priest and then had the big shindig on Saturday.

I don’t know if the priest signed their license or if the officiant at the second service did.
 
alwaysastudent said:
Is this permissible?
Click to expand...
No. It isn’t. If you are in the US, it’s also not even possible because the officiant, the priest, marries them both canonically and civilly.

As for having an obligation to inform the priest, I think you do. Your daughter is quite confused. And it shows a lack of understanding of what marriage is.

Also, canon law forbids having another religious ceremony either before or after the canonical one. If this is supposed to be a Muslim ceremony, that brings up all sorts of red flags!!
 
Last edited:
JetteZ said:
Yes, it’s done and legit, at least here in the US.
Click to expand...
It may have been “done” but it is certainly NOT “legit” ESPECIALLY in the US as the priest is both the canonical and civil officiant.
 
They were married once (I assume based on other posters) by the priest. The second is, essentially, theater.

What isn’t legit about that?
 
Last edited:
Instead being snippy you could take the time to explain yourself.

I shared an experience I had that matched the OPs concerns. The priest conducting the church wedding had no issue with the couple having a second event a few days later. No laws are broken, the couple has already been married in the church, the second event is a big party.

I fail to see the problem.
 
The Catholic wedding makes the marriage. The second is a public vowel renewal. It just happens a few days later instead of 25 years.
 
I can’t locate the citation right now, but per the Church a vow renewal must never give the appearance of being a true repetition of the vows, which is what the OP’s situation would suggest. That’s one of multiple reasons this would not be an option.
 
JetteZ said:
Instead being snippy you could take the time to explain yourself.

I shared an experience I had that matched the OPs concerns. The priest conducting the church wedding had no issue with the couple having a second event a few days later. No laws are broken, the couple has already been married in the church, the second event is a big party.

I fail to see the problem.
Click to expand...
JetteZ said:
The Catholic wedding makes the marriage. The second is a public vowel renewal. It just happens a few days later instead of 25 years.
Click to expand...
1127 §3. It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.
 
1ke said:
40.png
JetteZ:
Yes, it’s done and legit, at least here in the US.
Click to expand...
It may have been “done” but it is certainly NOT “legit” ESPECIALLY in the US as the priest is both the canonical and civil officiant.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

16 characters.
 
In what I was describing, the second event wasn’t a religious event. There wasn’t a priest or other religious leader (of any denomination) involved.

I’m not trying to argue; just explaining what I experienced.

ETA: I used the words vow renewal not because that was what it was called; it was just the best conceptual idea I had to explain it. I have no idea what the actual terminology might be.
 
Last edited:
Exactly this in Mexico as well. Couples marry at the courthouse and immediately go to the Church.
 
JetteZ said:
In what I was describing, the second event wasn’t a religious event. There wasn’t a priest or other religious leader (of any denomination) involved.

I’m not trying to argue; just explaining what I experienced.

ETA: I used the words vow renewal not because that was what it was called; it was just the best conceptual idea I had to explain it. I have no idea what the actual terminology might be.
Click to expand...
A priest MUST have a marriage license, and he must sign (and otherwise complete) that license when he does a Catholic wedding (unless it’s a convalidation, which is not the topic here). Therefore, once the Catholic ceremony occurs, the couple are married in the eyes of the state. Married. Done.

I cannot see how a justice of the peace or mayor or other civil officiant would perform a second marriage ceremony for a couple who already have a completed license and who are already married as far as the law is concerned. Now, one might do this—an exchange of vows with no license. So I cannot sit here and say “it’s impossible.” Nowadays, some people will do anything–that doesn’t make it right.

In any case, such a scenario is not permitted by Catholic canon law.
 
pianistclare said:
Exactly this in Mexico as well. Couples marry at the courthouse and immediately go to the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s the opposite of what the OP is describing.

The OP is about having a Catholic wedding first, then a civil ceremony (of some kind).
 
Perhaps it’s the wording “civil ceremony” that’s throwing it out of context. There isn’t someone residing over round 2 that is there in any legal capacity.

As to it being permitted by canon; I’ll defer to your authority.
 
JetteZ said:
Perhaps it’s the wording “civil ceremony” that’s throwing it out of context. There isn’t someone residing over round 2 that is there in any legal capacity.

As to it being permitted by canon; I’ll defer to your authority.
Click to expand...
The problem with a second exchange of vows is that doing such implies that the first vows (made in the presence of the priest) somehow did not count. That’s what the Church forbids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top